Vehicle traffic continues to grow at a rate that far outpaces the supply of new roads and highways. For example, a study on California roadways, Beyond Gridlock: Meeting California's Transportation Needs in the Twenty First Century Surface Transportation Policy Project, May 2000, incorporated herein by reference, provides statistics showing that demand is far outpacing supply. FIG. 1 is an extract from that report, showing that in a 13-year period, the number of vehicle miles traveled increased by 45% while new road facilities increased by 5% to 26% depending on the road type. Therefore, traffic demand increased at approximately twice the rate of new facilities over that period.
Aviation faces the same capacity problem as automobile transportation. With limited concrete, or numbers of runways and airports, the number of flying passengers is estimated to double or triple over the next 20 years, while the number of new airports or runways that are being planned is merely incremental. The aviation industry views new technologies as key to accommodating demand with improved efficiencies and a slow growing infrastructure. For example, by reducing the spacing between aircraft both vertically and horizontally, more aircraft can use the same block of airspace. Newer, more accurate, aircraft tracking technologies will allow for this reduced spacing. On airport surfaces, accurate tracking combined with decision support tools will allow more aircraft to use existing airport gates more effectively.
Automobile transportation may also benefit from new technologies that allow for more cars to use existing roads and facilities more efficiently. For example, these technologies may include smart traffic lights, vehicle transponders and other on board systems. Cooperative technologies receive a lot of attention for potential future vehicle applications. Pioneered in commercial aviation, use of on-board cooperative devices, such as transponders, allows for the communication of intent between users and third parties. In aviation, all aircraft are required by law to carry transponder devices in regulated airspace for applications such as surveillance and collision avoidance. With something like 10,000 commercial and 250,000 general aviation aircraft in existence today, this is regulated by law, mainly because aviation is inherently global and governments have heretofore been responsible for air traffic control.
For example, a vehicle transponder for pre-emption of traffic lights, is presented in a NASA Tech Brief, dated September 2006, and incorporated herein by reference. That tech brief describes when the unit at an intersection determines that this vehicle is approaching and has priority to preempt the intersection; it transmits a signal declaring the priority and the preemption to all participating vehicles (including this one) in the vicinity. If the unit at the intersection has determined that other participating vehicles are also approaching the intersection, then this unit also transmits, to the vehicle that has priority, a message that the other vehicles are approaching the same intersection. The texts of these messages, plus graphical symbols that show the directions and numbers of approaching vehicles are presented on the display panel of a computer that is part of the transponder.
While these systems have been designed, built and no doubt work effectively, the problem with full-scale implementation is institutional and not technical. The big issue with cooperative devices is that all vehicles need to be equipped to provide benefits overall. As in aviation, if one vehicle in a particular scenario is not equipped, the entire system is rendered useless and may be unsafe. Thus a need exists in the art for a system which is not cooperative in order to maximize benefits and operate in a mixed equipage scenario.
The U.S. DOT reported on the benefits of smarter traffic light management in a 2006 report, presented on http://www.benefitcost.its.dot.gov/ITS/benecost.nsf/ByLink/BOTM-October2006, incorporated herein by reference. In the Tysons Corner area of Northern Virginia, approximately 40 signalized intersections were connected to a temporary operations center. In the control room, operators monitored traffic conditions and retimed signals as necessary to improve traffic conditions. The DOT analysis estimated the system saved motorists approximately 20 million dollars annually. Stops were reduced by approximately 6 percent (saving 418 thousand dollars), system delays decreased by an estimated 22 percent (18 million dollars), and fuel consumption improved by an estimated 9 percent (1.5 million dollars). Total annual emissions of CO, NOx, and VOC were decreased by an estimated 134.6 thousand kilograms.
Other new technologies proposed for vehicle traffic management include the use of so-called intelligent beacons. U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,127, entitled Emergency Warning Intelligent Beacon System for Vehicles, incorporated herein by reference, describes a beacon system located at various points of interest to transmit local information to nearby motorists. Potential uses of the system include a speed limit beacon installed on a speed limit sign to reflect current or recommended speed limit based on weather conditions, ice, rain, potential hazards, etc. Another use is as a fog zone beacon installed in known fog zone areas where motorists are alerted of fog zone conditions ahead. Other uses of beacons include announcing freezing bridge surfaces, frozen road surface conditions, railroad crossings, and the presence of hazardous materials.
Use of radar sensors for various vehicle applications is well described in the prior art. Radar sensors are usually used to assist parking, monitor blind spots, anticipate collisions, starting and stopping operation or during driving with distance monitoring, and to regulate separation through cruise control operation. U.S. Pat. No. 7,243,013, entitled Vehicle Radar-Based Side Impact Assessment Method, incorporated herein by reference, describes the use of radar sensors using a single radar sensor mounted on each side of the vehicle to generate a range and range-rate value for detected target objects, and a controller coupled to each radar sensor. The controller calculates estimated target object speed, angle of the target object line of travel, and a shortest distance value from the sensor to the target object line of travel, and compares the shortest distance value and a change in the angle value to respective threshold values for potential collision threat assessment.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,268,732, entitled Radar Sensor For Use With Automobiles, incorporated herein by reference, describes the use of a different frequency band and modulation technique to monitor the near field region around a vehicle. This patent also states that current radar sensors are normally used for remote object detection, and that, for near field observations, high spatial resolution is important for separation as well as angle, whereas the angular information is less important for large separations. For monitoring of separation at large range, radar sensors are conventionally used having a frequency of approximately 76 Gigahertz. These frequencies have some disadvantages, however, and frequencies of approximately 24 Gigahertz are better for near field monitoring.
On-line magazine CNET offers reviews of various new consumer electronics items, including one by Bonnie Cha, of the Garmin Nuvi series of car GPS units, published on Nov. 20, 2006 and incorporated herein by reference. The reviewer notes many newer features are now being integrated with GPS devices such as Bluetooth, so it can be used hands-free to make and accept phone calls. If a number is listed for a point of interest, the Nuvi 660 model can dial out to that business with a press of a button and traditional voice-guided directions are automatically muted during incoming calls. There are also options to send text messages, synchronize cellular phone address books and call log, and dial by voice. The reviewer commented that among of the greatest perks and differentiators about the Garmin Nuvi 660 are its travel features. It has an onboard travel kit that includes an MP3 player, an audible book player, a JPEG picture viewer with a slide-show function, a world clock, currency and measurement converters, a calculator, and support in various languages and dialects. Like most of the units on the market the maps are available in 2D and 3D view with day and night colors, and the view can be changed so that either north or the direction of travel or always at the top of the screen. Plus and minus icons on the map screen allow you to zoom in and out, and there's also a trip information page that displays car speed, direction, trip time, and so forth. The Nuvi 660 has a database with all the major categories and more specific ones; one can search for restaurants by type of cuisine, for example. While, as for the mobile phone industry, features are constantly added to in-car GPS units, these features are mainly limited to the somewhat obvious addition of user applications that run on the GPS unit's processor, with a lesser degree of integration to the GPS unit's main routing and guidance functions.
New technologies envisioned for vehicles also include the use of signaling. In the weblog blog.mboffin.com/post.aspx?id=2208, on June 2007, incorporated herein by reference, the participants in the forum discuss the idea of using various lights to show the driver's use of controls. For example, the question is posed that “you have brake lights to know when someone has their foot on the brake pedal, so why not acceleration lights to know when they are pushing on the accelerator pedal?” In this example, the posters go on to discuss variable headlight intensity related to the car's acceleration, based on acceleration pedal movement. However, they quickly point out all of the impracticalities of such a scheme due to variations in different car headlamp intensities, not to mention differing ambient light conditions.
In recent years, some signaling lights have been added to cars including the third center brake light, as shown in FIG. 2, and the use of indicator lights on car mirrors and side panels. According to Wikipedia.org, incorporated herein by reference, in 1986, the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Transport Canada mandated that all new passenger cars have a Centre High Mount Stop Lamp (CHMSL) installed. Referred to as the center brake light, or the “Dole light,” after the then-Secretary of Transportation, Elizabeth Dole, this light provides a deceleration warning to following drivers, whose view of the braking vehicle's regular stop lights is blocked by interceding vehicles. It also helps to distinguish brake signals from turn signals in North America, where red rear turn signals identical in appearance to brake lights are permitted. According to NHTSA Technical Report Number DOT HS 808 696: The Long-Term Effectiveness of Center High Mounted Stop Lamps in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, by Kahane, Charles J. and Hertz, Ellen (1998), incorporated herein by reference, the CHMSL is credited with reducing collisions overall by about 5%.
Bavarian Motor Werks, of Germany, has implemented a technology known as “adaptive brake lights” where the intensity or number of brake lights illuminated is altered depending upon the type of braking. In a normal braking situation, standard brake lights meeting DOT or other requirements are activated. However, in a panic stop (as measured by pedal pressure or accelerometers) additional brakes lights are illuminated and/or existing brake lights are illuminated at a higher intensity to better catch the attention of a following driver.
Landschaft, Published U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0082259, incorporated herein by reference, discloses a technique for activating a turn signal based on a defined route and a GPS location. The primary purpose of the invention is to signal the driver of the vehicle, using the vehicle's own turn signals, of an upcoming turn, so that the driver is not distracted reading a GPS display. The signaling of other drivers is a secondary consideration. Second, the system relies upon a predetermined path being followed, according to a GPS navigation system. Thus, the system only works when a driver is following a route programmed into a GPS system.
This system has a number of obvious flaws. For example, a very small percentage of trips are made using the GPS system as a guide. GPS systems often provide wrong or misleading instructions, and moreover, a driver may decide to take a different route for various reasons, including road construction, detours, or desires to visit other destinations. In such instances, the Landschaft reference may generate erroneous turn signals, as there does not appear to be any means for correction. Landschaft also discloses a technique for measuring distance to a turn and determining, based on a geographical database, when to activate the turn signal. However, he does not teach or suggest any technique for activating turn signals in situations where the route has not been pre-programmed in a GPS system.
A number of patents exist which teach the concept of a signaling device for indicating when a vehicle is decelerating, even if the brakes are not being applied. Cheng, U.S. Pat. No. 7,400,237, incorporated herein by reference, discloses a deceleration detector and indicator. Bumpous, U.S. Pat. No. 3,665,391 is similar to the Cheng patent. Goetscchalckx, EP Patent 1332917, incorporated herein by reference, discloses a display that displays speed and acceleration/deceleration to vehicles. Debaillie, EP Patent 1538025, incorporated herein by reference, discloses a similar system to Goetschalckx but using GPS to determine speed. These references merely indicate speed and/or acceleration and/or deceleration to motorists behind the vehicle, even if brakes have not been applied. These types of devices have already been applied to some busses and trucks in the form of a yellow “deceleration” light. However, such device do not indicate direction of turns.
Au, Published U.S. Patent Application 2005/0200467, incorporated herein by reference, discloses an automatic signaling system using a processor and a “sensor.” The “sensor” 12 comprises a CCD camera which detects vehicle position optically, by detecting the location of roadway lane markers. The processor then determines if a lane change is occurring and activates the turn signal accordingly. The invention has some obvious limitations. It indicates a lane change only after it has started. It appears also to be limited to lane changes, and not to intersection signaling. The invention requires a camera and optical imaging software. Applicant is aware of similar technology incorporated into newer model cars (e.g., 2009 BMW 7-series) that alert a driver of a lane change using optical imaging. However these devices do not appear to automatically generate signals to other drivers, and moreover can only detect a lane change (and not a turn) after it has commenced.
McKenna, U.S. Pat. No. 5,712,618, incorporated herein by reference, discloses an automatic signaling device which generates a pedestrian or vehicle warning based on wheel speed and turning angle to generate signals or warnings when turns or lane changes occur. Again, it would seem that this device is somewhat primitive and can generate a signal only after the turn has commenced (as evidenced by turning angle). McKenna does not teach or suggest a technique to anticipate a turn before the steering wheel is turned.
RLP ENGINEERING discloses a technique for activating turn signals automatically. The primary thrust of their invention appears to be a mechanism for turning OFF turn signals based on vehicle sensors, rather than using the traditional mechanical mechanism, thus reducing part count and complexity. The RLP ENGINEERING website (incorporated herein by reference) disclose, somewhat vaguely, a technique for “reminding” a driver to use his turn signals. It is described as a system that reminds the driver to use turn signals by monitoring the vehicle dynamics, detecting specific turns and comparing if the turn signal was properly utilized in the turn. This is not to be confused with turn signal reminders that are currently on vehicles to remind drivers to shut off a “stuck on” turn signal. This is a system that makes the driver a better driver by encouraging the appropriate use of turn signals.
When a driver repeatedly neglects to use the turn signal, then that driver will eventually receive a short duration display suggesting: “USE SIGNAL NEXT TURN”. Subsequent improvement of turn signal usage habits will eliminate the driver's display messages and thus the driver's turn signal habits are improved. Drivers who consistently use turn signals will never receive a drivers display message and this is an extremely important aspect of the feature. This means that most all drivers will not consider this vehicle feature a nuisance. Occasionally, even good drivers may become distracted while driving and therefore may occasionally neglect the proper use of the turn signal. In this case, the driver's display message will serve to notify the driver to maybe pay more attention to the task of driving.
RLP Engineering further discloses a Turn Signal Reminder For Lane Departure Warning. Present Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDW) have the positive side effect of causing the driver to use the turn signal for lane changes. However, LDW systems are engaged at a threshold speed over 45 mph or so, depending on the manufacturer's design. The warnings for lane shift without the use of a turn signal are instant, abrupt and grab the driver's attention in order that the driver may bring the vehicle back into its proper lane. If intentional lane shifts are accompanied by the turn signal, then no warning is given.
RLP Engineering has a patent pending that would monitor lane change performance at the speeds below the 45 mph threshold. If the driver repeatedly neglects to use the turn signal at these lower speeds, then the driver will eventually receive a display message such as “SIGNAL LANE CHANGES”. This is not an abrupt warning, but a user friendly suggestion to the driver to use turn signals for all lane changes, not just a higher speeds.
From the description on the RLP ENGINEERING website it appears that the system does not automatically generate turn signals, but rather nags the driver to use them. It appears that rather than predicting turns, it determines when a turn occurs and then watches for lack of turn signal use and then reminds the driver after the fact to train the driver.
Richard Ponzani of RLP ENGINEERING has at least two patents issued related to this technology. U.S. Pat. No. 7,408,455, incorporated herein by reference, discloses his “Electronic Intelligent Turn Signal Control System” which is claimed to turn ON and OFF turn signals in response to vehicle sensors. However, again, this is a sensor based on wheel speed and turn angles (or yaw measurement) not prediction of turns. U.S. Pat. No. 7,173,524, incorporated herein by reference, also is directed toward an “Electronic Intelligent turn signal control system” but this application appears to be directed only toward the turn-off feature for signals left on. Ponzani has a number of other automotive applications pending, but they do not appear to be related to turn signals.
Taking the use of onboard systems and the smart car concept to a logical conclusion, there is talk of cars that drive themselves. In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on Nov. 5, 2007, published on BBC.co.uk and incorporated herein by reference, Larry Burns, GM's vice-president for research and development and strategic planning, stated that self-driving cars could be on the road by the year 2015. That article also included a description of a competition held for 11 driverless cars that had to navigate around a 60 mile course without operator intervention. The cars had various sensor devices onboard including radar and Lidar (light detection and ranging), GPS navigation, and databases. A number of competitions have been held to test such automated cars, and Universities, such as Carnegie Mellon, have spent considerable resources developing such test vehicles. However, it does not appear that such automated vehicles will be ready for the road in the near future. Moreover, such vehicles do not appear to generate turn signal indications when a human driver is driving.
John Krumm (Microsoft Research Corporation) has written two papers for the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) which are relevant to the background of the present invention. These papers were published after applicant's effective filing date, and thus are not “Prior Art.” SAE technical paper 2008-01-1095 entitled “A Markov Model for Driver Turn Prediction” (Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Technology Controls and Navigation Systems, 2008, SP-2193 Apr. 14-17, 2008) and SAE technical paper 2008-01-0201 entitled “Route Prediction from Trip Observations” (Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Technology Controls and Navigation Systems, 2008, SP-2193 Apr. 14-17, 2008) are both incorporated herein by reference.
In the first paper, Krumm describes an algorithm for making short-term route predictions for vehicle drivers. The Markov model is trained from the driver's long term trip history from GS data. Krumm envisions his device being used to include driver warnings, anticipatory information delivery, and various automatic vehicle behaviors including automatic turn signals (Krumm, page 1). Krumm does not attempt to determine an entire trip route in this first paper, but rather only immediate segments. While Krumm mentions “automatic turn signals” as one of the possible applications of his device, he does not state how the device would be used for such an application.
In the second paper, Krumm discloses a method of route prediction from trip observations. Unlike the first paper, Krumm here is discloses a technique for end-to-end route prediction based on GPS observation of past trips. Krumm does not disclose this embodiment being used for automatic turn signals, but rather for other applications, including optimizing hybrid vehicle recharging patters (Krumm, Page 1).